Unbelievable. You are still fighting your proxy war against XT.
No, you (like Roger Ver, Mike Hearn, Peter R, etc.) are still fighting for XT's failed governance coup like lost Japanese soldiers. I, OTOH, am dancing on XT's grave and heckling the mourners.  Thank you for producing such lulzy quantities of self-pitying grief, for the entertainment of the socioeconomic majority. Now why don't you fork off to Bitcoin Jesus' Island of Misfit Gavinistas forum? Or Frap.doc's circlejerk? Or voat/v/bitcoinxt? You know you are not wanted and have no power here. Your 'oh poor me' martyr complex is old and busted. Do something new or GTFO! I, for one, enjoy your antics immensely. I do however hope that 'our group' doesn't count these people out prematurely. They are not stupid and do not want for resources. I can pretty much promise that they'll be back and will be constantly learning from their mistakes. |
|
|
|
For various reasons, I've been more familiar with Mr. Hearn's position for longer than most of the people reading this. It is for this reason (and due to my nature) that I was one of the first people to call him out on this forum back when he was widely considered to be some sort of a hero to crypto-currencies. It is also for this reason that since not long after my initial interest in Bitcoin I've been somewhat fixated on how to deal with TPTB interference. The idea of mollifying the mainstream corp/gov power structures was never something I saw as 'sustainable' and the strategy would fail immediately if/when Bitcoin is actually needed by humanity. My focus has been on how to harden crypto against even the most severe of attacks (and we've seen not a glimpse of what types of attacks are possible yet.) I just gave an outline in another thread which condenses some of my ideas on this for anyone interested:
If there were an update to the POW algo, existing miners would suddenly and abruptly have not jack shit to say about the course of Bitcoin.
Things which are rewarded economically are HIGHLY successful. More than I and more than probably Satoshi would have guessed. Unfortunately the only thing which was economically rewarded (in the core system at initial release) was sha256 hashing. ASIC came at least a year before my own best case estimates. Now we have absurdities like you pointed out where every transaction costs > 1 daily household energy cost and no clear way out of the maze.
[You might say that the ratio can be improved by somehow getting Bitcoin to be used for every coffee purchase to which I would point out that transactions have been basically free (to end users) for half a decade and Bitcoin has not gotten traction in this role. I would further say that it is because Bitcoin sucks in this role, and making it get somewhere to par with dedicated exchange currencies would be a bigger re-design than some of the adjustments I suggest.]
Let me explain my 'matrix' and 'path' valuations. Say there are 10 verifying transfer nodes (a-j). Say that prior to being mined, a transaction needs to be verified three times before being mined. Say you want to monetarily reward good distribution. What you do is statistically prefer the least noted verification paths:
Here's an example of three different paths:
a->b->c-> mine
f->a->j-> mine
d->e->j-> mine
If a particular verification path (e.g., f->a->j-> mine) is continually repeated for many transactions, that path loses weighting. A miner will likely see the same transaction come in through various paths and can choose the one to insert into the block they are mining.
In my vision of things, a fair fraction of the block reward is distributed to each node who participated in transferring the transactions to the eventual miners thereby producing an economic incentive both to transfer transactions, and to be 'weird' (e.g., not one of 10,000 nodes operating within Amazon's cloud which offers no real value to the network.)
The more complex the system, the more easy it is to game. The real challenge is to try to make sure that the nodes are legitimately operated by independent players ('Joe Enduser' as much as possible) and are not cheating. We also want to do this while preserving anonymity as much as possible. A cheap USB device which only becomes unique in the enduser's hands can achieve this. If the nodes in the transfer network matrix are randomly making connections to one another and are cross-checking one another (see Kaminski's 'nooter') and comparing notes, liars and cheats can be identified and ejected.
This sounds complicated, but functionally it is actually not a very big shift from what we have in today's Bitcoin. Most users would not even notice a difference.
Most semi-technical people can appreciated the overhead that keeping such a distribution network matrix healthy would add. If it becomes necessary to operate Bitcoin under steganographic methods, the overhead of that would dwarf the functional overhead which is why the current 1MB block size is not something I want to see vanish. Should the internet tighten up with global network filtering and regulations on distributed crypto-currencies, the choices would be basically one of three:
- Forget about distributed crypto-currencies like Bitcoin as a footnote in history.
- Comply with any regulations mandated to use them.
- Adapt crypto-currencies to slip through the cracks and provide economic incentives strong enough to incent people to try.
|
|
|
|
...
Hah, yeah, the forum can eat a lot of time.  I don't understand fully what your vision is but i think there is zero chance that bitcoin will be the currency that implements that. Miners are the one to decide and they will never do that. I'm not sure if the network matrix and black listing would be a good think for decentralization though. If there were an update to the POW algo, existing miners would suddenly and abrutly have not jack shit to say about the course of Bitcoin. Things which are rewarded economically are HIGHLY successful. More than I and more than probably Satoshi would have guessed. Unfortunately the only thing which was economically rewarded (in the core system at initial release) was sha256 hashing. ASIC came at least a year before my own best case estimates. Now we have absurdities like you pointed out where every transaction costs > 1 daily household energy cost and no clear way out of the maze. [You might say that the ratio can be improved by somehow getting Bitcoin to be used for every coffee purchase to which I would point out that transactions have been basically free (to end users) for half a decade and Bitcoin has not gotten traction in this role. I would further say that it is because Bitcoin sucks in this role, and making it get somewhere to par with dedicated exchange currencies would be a bigger re-design than some of the adjustments I suggest.] Let me explain my 'matrix' and 'path' valuations. Say there are 10 verifying transfer nodes (a-j). Say that prior to being mined, a transaction needs to be verified three times before being mined. Say you want to monetarily reward good distribution. What you do is statistically prefer the least noted verification paths: Here's an example of three different paths: a->b->c-> mine f->a->j-> mine d->e->j-> mine If a particular verification path (e.g., f->a->j-> mine) is continually repeated for many transactions, that path loses weighting. A miner will likely see the same transaction come in through various paths and can choose the one to insert into the block they are mining. In my vision of things, a fair fraction of the block reward is distributed to each node who participated in transferring the transactions to the eventual miners thereby producing an economic incentive both to transfer transactions, and to be 'weird' (e.g., not one of 10,000 nodes operating within Amazon's cloud which offers no real value to the network.) The more complex the system, the more easy it is to game. The real challenge is to try to make sure that the nodes are legitimately operated by independent players ('Joe Enduser' as much as possible) and are not cheating. We also want to do this while preserving anonymity as much as possible. A cheap USB device which only becomes unique in the enduser's hands can achieve this. If the nodes in the transfer network matrix are randomly making connections to one another and are cross-checking one another (see Kaminski's 'nooter') and comparing notes, liars and cheats can be identified and ejected. This sounds complicated, but functionally it is actually not a very big shift from what we have in today's Bitcoin. Most users would not even notice a difference. Most semi-technical people can appreciated the overhead that keeping such a distribution network matrix healthy would add. If it becomes necessary to operate Bitcoin under steganographic methods, the overhead of that would dwarf the functional overhead which is why the current 1MB block size is not something I want to see vanish. Should the internet tighten up with global network filtering and regulations on distributed crypto-currencies, the choices would be basically one of three: - Forget about distributed crypto-currencies like Bitcoin as a footnote in history. - Comply with any regulations mandated to use them. - Adapt crypto-currencies to slip through the cracks and provide economic incentives strong enough to incent people to try. |
|
|
|
I feel that the POW aspect of Bitcoin is a total mess which might be impossible to recover from. So yes, I realize this and agree, but my thesis about it is the opposite of yours.
...
So do you prefer bitcoin switching to POS-Mining or something similar? Surely that would shut up all the persons claiming bitcoin is bad for the environment. But it surely will never happen since miners decide which chain wins and you can bet that most bitcoiners will switch to use that chain. I'm not sure what must happen that a pos-chain gets the new real bitcoin chain. ... POS never made any sense to me and does not now. I was implying that it would be relatively straightforward to change the POW algo from sha256 to other things, and that could (relatively) easily happen if miners acted in a manner which was to dickish. I would like to see rewards base on 'trasfer node path'. That is, a unique and valuable 'path' of verification would be weighted in reward, acceptance, or both. Some CPU-friendly per-verification-node pre-mining and/or optimization might be worthwhile both as a means of enhancing efficiency and verifying the distributed nature of the 'transfer path'. TPM-like technology got Todd, Hearn, and myself sporting tech boners some years ago. The reason it had that impact on me is that it might be a way to enhance the credibility of a unique verifying transfer node. That is to say, it would be cheap and easy enough to obtain one (envision a thumb-drive miner form factor) but difficult enough to discourage well funded attackers from trying to flood the network in sybil mode. Todd's 'scratch off' power-on key generation initialization makes the idea really workable. I would envision 'black listing' of mis-behaving devices as an aspect of the transfer network. So, say, a node were not verifying transactions (a current problem) the device would be obsolete and the operator would lose their $3.00 investment and ranking in the network matrix. As I said, the technology needed to get a sustainable system which fosters good geo-political distribution is not trivial. But it very well could be worth doing and it might be the case that a solution which gets it right may be the one which eventually bubbles to the top of the heap. I'll maybe get back to some of your other points later (since you don't seem to be a total shill), but I better get something useful done today. |
|
|
|
To think this whole debate began with, Its not a problem that there are problems because the problems only happen some of the time, of course the problem will become bigger problems in a few months but that's not a problem!
I think the bigger problem, is the problem that people are ignoring the problem until it becomes a bigger problem and then they increase the problem, by adding too much debate about the problem.
Increase the damn blocksize and end the damn debate.
If by 'problems that have not happened yet' you mean issues where TPTB acting through core service providers enforce certain legal mandates on Bitcoin infrastructure providers, vendors, and users, I would agree with some of what you say. As best I can tell, the reason given by people who claim that government interference with Bitcoin is impossible amounts to ' because: freedom'. And secondarily, because TPTB have such respect for and fear of the masses that they would not dare...totally ignoring that the masses who have even heard of Bitcoin don't give a fuck about it by-n-large. I find both of these suggestions to be ludicrous and expect that in the event of a monetary crisis in fiat-land both laughable assertions (and anything resembling unencumbered use of the global internet by the plebs) would vanish into a tiny puff of smoke. |
|
|
|
I would say that it's about time to start at least pushing into the phase where there is organic competition and fees start to become a factor. Who knows what Satoshi would say. Not that I ever really ever considered the guy to be an infalable oracle of infinte wisdom, but it is certainly not a crazy idea that there would be competition for space in blocks either.
An artificial constraint can't be the basis for organic fee pressure. There is nothing 'artificial' about the transaction rate. It's just an operational parameter which defines how the system works and is no more 'artificial' than the 21m currency base, the 10min block frequency, or the POW algorithm. Changing this parameter will have pros and cons, just as would changing any number of other operational parameters. Folks like me who wish to see the transaction rate rather severely limited simply value the aspects which are enhanced by having a low data rate. In my case I highly value the potential flexibility to adapt to certain types of attack (which we've not seen yet.) Conversely, having a wide userbase for native Bitcoin itself is not very interesting, and in fact I consider it a negative. Most users add nothing toward infrastructure support even at our low data rate. Most people are not prepared technically to safegaurd their BTC and Bitcoin get's egg on it's face every time one of them gets ripped off, and it is an appallingly inferior solution for run-of-the-mill coffee purchases anyway compared to systems which were designed from the get-go to be real-time. Bitcoin does have it's network effect / first mover advantage, but the currency has a head start, not a monopoly. People will and do pay a slight premium for access to Bitcoin's stability, liquidity and security, but any attempt to overcharge and people will take their business elsewhere, to other cryptos waiting in the wings.
Organic fee pressure would exist on the basis of the increased block orphan risk with each added tx. In the long run, if those fees are not sufficient to pay for adequate security, I would expect miners to form a cartel to enforce some minimum fees. I could understand a cartel seeming like an artificial constraint as well, and in some senses it would be one; though having a different basis than a software hard-limit would give the nature of the constraint different properties. For instance, a mining cartel would be able to adjust their fee policy in real time if they so desired.
Ultimately I would like to get rid of the mining cartels themselves as mentioned in my last post above. There is some chance that that would happen to their detriment should they abuse their power which is probably the main reason it has not happened already. Block size has relatively little to do with it one way or another I don't guess. Since I've not mentioned it for a while, note that mining never has the potential to be profitable in the long term whether the reward comes from coinbase or from fees or from some combination. The simple reason for this is that capacity will rapidly grow to take all of the excess. The higher the profitability, the stronger this differential which creates growth and makes the profitability point be hit that much sooner. The only solution is to consolidate and start monetizing business intelligence which will further squeeze out miners who are not of size to do so efficiently, but then we have a shitty PayPal-II and that ugly reality cannot be hidden forever. That really would open the door for distributed crypto-currency which adhered more to some of the original principles of Bitcoin and could make Bitcoin go extinct (and at that point I would hope for this outcome.) |
|
|
|
The inflation rate which supports the Bitcoin infrastructure has already dropped from 50BTC/block to 25BTC/block. Soon it will be cut in half again.
I would say that it's about time to start at least pushing into the phase where there is organic competition and fees start to become a factor. Who knows what Satoshi would say. Not that I ever really ever considered the guy to be an infalable oracle of infinte wisdom, but it is certainly not a crazy idea that there would be competition for space in blocks either.
You realize that it is impossible to make up for the block halvings by increasing the fees? It would be instant death to bitcoin trying that. And why should we need higher fees now? The mining market is obviously so lucrative that we have more than 100 fold hashpower than we would need to secure the network. And there was this study, i read about some weeks ago, that calculated that every bitcoin transaction needs the amount of power that 1.75 average us- households need each day. Every single bitcoin transaction. Surely that makes no sense at all. Miners had to switch off their nonprofitable miners all the time. It's not something to fear about that. The network is more than protected and the incentive to mine seems to be way too high. So i don't see a problem with low fees at the moment. I feel that the POW aspect of Bitcoin is a total mess which might be impossible to recover from. So yes, I realize this and agree, but my thesis about it is the opposite of yours. I am hardly going to shed any tears if the total reward for mining blocks is insufficient to support a large datacenter deployment even if it found every block. That reality is obviously on the horizon for anyone who shelled out the money needed to mine competitively. As I've said many times, I anticipate that they will have to monetize other aspects of the network which they, unlike smaller players, will ultimately be well positioned to do. At that point Bitcoin as a system has no real interest to me since it will be more like VISA and PayPal than like original Bitcoin. A more ideal design would be that a reward is more available and more generous to infrastructure providers who are demonstrably decentralized, and the more decentralized, the more generous the reward. A block reward which would barely interest a large consolidated miner would be a giant win for a decentralized independent participant. So, it is not the end of the world to me if rewards in monetary terms shrunk considerably with what is realized today. The 'grow or die' philosophy that Silicon Valley takes as a bedrock truth is unimpressive to me and always has been. Not only is a demonstrably decentralized infrastructure network difficult to do technically, but it would be fairly challenging to get from where we are now with POW to where I think we need to be for a healthy and enduring system. The only realistic way I see it happening is for a hostile blockchain fork (a-la XT) to occur and a trusted group (namely the blockstream guys) to take the opportunity to fix the POW issues once and for all. I doubt that there will ever be another point in time where there is the same aggregation of capable and trusted technical participants than we have at this moment under the Blockstream banner. --- Lastly, I'll point out again that if the average transaction was, say, $10,000 equiv, a 0.5% transaction fee would net a block winner something like $200,000. If half of it were distributed among those providing transfer infrastructure (non-mining validating nodes) and half were available to the block winner, that is enough to keep small-timers interested and playing at various levels. Most of my real work with Bitcoin has been transfers of value in this range, and if the native blockchain were used for nightly balancing operations between off-chain (and/or sidechain) providers the $10,000 figure might be low-ball. The actually coffee purchasers doing transactions on the sidechain (for instance) would still be paying a tiny fee (and probably none for branded sidechains) and the reward to the native Bitcoin infrastructure supports would still be generous at a low transaction rate. One more advantage in using Bitcoin as a high value system is that those making such transactions are usually in no big hurry. There is then no need to try to convert Bitcoin from a batch system to a real-time system. A batch system is vastly easier to secure against attack, and particularly if those using it in this use-case are doing so with the appropriate expectations about system function. |
|
|
|
|
At some point he'll end up being at least figurehead for Conformal's go implementation of the Bitcoin protocol and other software, though he'll likely make some contributions as well.
I forsee a fairly bright future for Conformal. It will be 'most convenient' to use their implementation for those who choose to operate under a 'bitcoin license.' Easier to 'conform' I reckon.
|
|
|
|
of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!? In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining. So you anticipate that if Bitcoin starts to get traction and take food out of the mouths of the mainstream financial system beneficiaries (financial system corporate, govt, etc) they are going to say: ' Drat! Those darned geeky hodlers won and there is nothing we can do about it because Freedom.' Or are you believing that there will be such a world-wide groundswell of support for Bitcoiners that citizens will take up arms against the persecutors and overthrow the evil govts on our behalf? Are you a fucking idiot? Or just completely out-of-touch with reality? I say as I always have that Bitcoin is at it's core a guerrilla currency and we should not slack off on protecting it through it's potential strengths as such. If I were on the other side of the fence and worried about it (as I would be), I would have taken pains to lull the community into complacency and detract from developments which would strengthen it against attack until a good opportunity to drop the hammer came. That opportunity would likely come with unrelated opportunities to tighten up on the internet generally as it wormed it's way into a position where it provides a bit more of certain kinds of freedoms than are desirable (thanks in no small part to the cypherpunks.) |
|
|
|
By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.
And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see. I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system. Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork. As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key. I'd do it. I'm widely known as someone who is up-front and more than willing to admit my mistakes if evidence proves I've err'd. One might call me [in Latin] ' arbiter elegantiarum'. I won't take the bet because as I've mentioned, I, as a staunch 1MB'r, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe and necessary. This would indicate that it has exceeded the realistic capacity to support logical scaling mechanism such as sidechains and actually needs to scale internally. To wit, I will as mentioned consider the 1MB protocol to be obsolete if I sense that van der Laan, Maxwell, Wuille, Garzik, and Andresen all agree with an update to it. Like many other clued in analysts and hodlers, it is obvious to me that mining consolidation is the Achille's heal of Bitcoin, and very well may be limiting it's growth at this time. Simply put, miners operate at the pleasure of the governments under who's jurisdiction they fall. Were it not for the fact that a reasonable parity of hashing power operates in two competing political and economic jurisdictions (The U.S. + EU-land minions, and China) Bitcoin might already be toast. As it is, the argument for strength is fairly tenuous and rests on the conjecture that the blockchain holds enduring value which could be realized on re-start after an attack. I can easily imagine the power structures in China, who probably doesn't care much about Bitcoin one way or another, horse-trading miner attacks for some other geo-political and/or economic goodies in a variety of situations. Or that it simply may threaten their own internal economic system in ways that are intolerable. The above mentioned mining consolidation weakness is why I would not take the bet an the 'longest chain' wording. It is a word-trick and heavily pumped by the likes of Peter R. probably as the next-best hope for destroying Bitcoin after the implosion of the XT/BIP101 attack. Aside from that the words have no meaning without the all-important 'valid'. There are work-around to subjugation by political and legal pressure on the consolidated hashing power, but it is unclear how well they would work in practice. Besides all of the above, I find it more likely than not that Peter R. is not betting with his own money. It seems highly possible that he is in fact betting with my tax dollars. edits: slight |
|
|
|
meh peter is so predictable! Guess that's the academic method.. dismiss what's itching.
I've noticed and increasing trend of completely ignoring inconvenient points that an adversary brings to an argument and simply re-stating one's case over and over again. It seems to be society wide. It's an interesting observation and I don't believe it is a figment of my imagination. Until relatively recently it seems like it was 'honorable' (or something) to consider and answer point made by another before moving forward. Obviously this balloons and is not sustainable so if one is trying to be honest one spends some effort trying to abandon the least salient elements of a conversation first and focuses on the most difficult and valid ones. The exact opposite seems to be the norm now, but it could be an artifact of degradation of participant quality on this particular forum which is the one I follow most closely. For instance, always forget the "valid" part of "the longest proof-of-work chain", you naughty boy..  Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. ( in fact, i already have  ) Like instead of his educated farts, why not choose to stand by his beloved-once-such-energy-to-shill-it BitcoinXT? But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^ LOL! |
|
|
|
To be quite honest, I'm not exactly sure what "the market" even means in this context. I said earlier, "how can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want?" But what's not clear to me is if the "market" that wants the increase is the same "market" that needs to enforce the quota.
Anyways, I suspect by this time next year we shall have our answer. My hunch is that, yes, there is only one market and if that market wants an increase (i.e., Qmax is to the left of Q*) then it shall find a way to fork the protocol.
One man's 'operational parameter' is another man's 'quota'.
By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.
And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see. I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system. |
|
|
|
Yes, q.e.d.
Needless to say that the Swiss direct democracy generates a better (broad) education system (not just the higher education for the 1 percent).
...
Ya, educating kids about how great it is to butt-fuck one another. Yes, that's civilization and capitalism (patri archy). That means competition, in contrast to the stateless, self-sufficient community ( anarchy). I'm postulating anarchy, but among the several different reign systems I still prefer direct democracy over elitist/feudalist systems. Sounds like pervi archy to me. I'm postulating that you sheep are under management of a bunch of one-worlders who don't want you, or anyone else, reproduce on your own and without proper management. Your postulates are schizophrenic. You are against progressiv and regressive education systems at the same time: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12451762#msg12451762https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12454448#msg12454448Counter 'arguments' as an end in itself. As far as education goes, I've relatively recently and relatively abruptly gone 'old school'. As long as people somehow learn the three R's (reading, writing, and 'rithmatic), that's fine and it doesn't matter how it happens. Hopefully it would happen in small localized groups as much as possible. After that, if some kids want to go farther, fantastic. I'm happy to have my tax dollars go toward that as well. These factory schools are as bad for kids and factory farms are bad for swine in my opinion. And the end goal of pure exploitation by the factory owners is very similar as well. I don't think it is appropriate for teachers to demo their perversions on kids even if the 'community consensus' in places like Switzerland is that pre-schoolers should know everything there is to know about sodomy and what-not. But, hey, it's your country. I'm not going to run over there and try to change you folks just because you do things that I think are sick. |
|
|
|
Yes, q.e.d.
Needless to say that the Swiss direct democracy generates a better (broad) education system (not just the higher education for the 1 percent).
...
Ya, educating kids about how great it is to butt-fuck one another. Yes, that's civilization and capitalism (patri archy). That means competition, in contrast to the stateless, self-sufficient community ( anarchy). I'm postulating anarchy, but among the several different reign systems I still prefer direct democracy over elitist/feudalist systems. Sounds like pervi archy to me. I'm postulating that you sheep are under management of a bunch of one-worlders who don't want you, or anyone else, reproduce on your own and without proper management. |
|
|
|
Absolutely, and regressing rapidly as our society and education system devolves. Yes, q.e.d. Needless to say that the Swiss direct democracy generates a better (broad) education system (not just the higher education for the 1 percent). ... Ya, educating kids about how great it is to butt-fuck one another. |
|
|
|
Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama
Warmist scientists including UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth to Obama: ...recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)...
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
... finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.
Sincerely,
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
I got to thinking of this in this in the context of the 'red scare', 'McCarthyism', and 'black-listing'. Same shit, different assholes. History will be no more kind to these people than it was to Joe McCarthy and his minions and hopefully much less so. I'll work toward that outcome. |
|
|
|
Nestle is operational, or planning to be, buying water in my state for '$0.00225 per gallon' and selling it for 'up to $2.63 per gallon'. I'd say that multi-national corporations headquartered in Switzerland are as up-to-speed as any on how to exploit 'underdeveloped' populations worldwide. Small wonder that they are as out-in-front as any in trying to get guns out of the hands of people of areas that they exploit. Gotta protect those infrastructure investments. The people of Oregon are 'underdeveloped'?  Absolutely, and regressing rapidly as our society and education system devolves. Don't Coca Cola and every other soft drink manufacturer buy municipal water and process it it into finished products at roughly the same price differential?
Probably. Most are multi-national corporations and are more similar than they are different. All are equally worthless and the world would be better of if/when they all are '#rekt.' You are either being devilishly obtuse, or simply incredibly thick.  OK. |
|
|
|
Nestle is operational, or planning to be, buying water in my state for '$0.00225 per gallon' and selling it for 'up to $2.63 per gallon'. I'd say that multi-national corporations headquartered in Switzerland are as up-to-speed as any on how to exploit 'underdeveloped' populations worldwide. Small wonder that they are as out-in-front as any in trying to get guns out of the hands of people of areas that they exploit. Gotta protect those infrastructure investments. |
|
|
|
What about the greenies that do their best to make energy expensive?
I always thought that was pretty suspicious. But the whole thing is nuts.
If I had control of a decreasingly easily accessible supply of fossil fuel reserves which limited competition from entry, it would hardly break my heart to see the price that the consumer pays for my product go up. One of the most surprising things to me when I started studying this 'global climate change' thing was the lack of evidence that the evil fossil fuel companies were significantly supporting the 'skeptics'. I had pretty much bought the party line that this was a big factor, but when I look into even the most promoted cases (such as the Willie Soon situation) I see surprisingly little. Those scientist who do buck the 'consensus' seem to do so at great risk to their careers and seem to do so on a shoe-string budget especially when compared to their counterparts. It really looks to me like almost all of the environmental groups are at best 'controlled opposition' to the corporate multi-nationals, and more and more are not even 'opposition' any more. They put on a little bit of a show for their naive supporters from time to time but increasingly they don't even seem to be bothering with that. And the regulatory agencies are flat out lobbyists and cheerleaders for the industries that they are supposed to be regulating. That has been the case for nearly forever. |
|
|
|
Would you really like to discount the science produced by anyone who has a financial interest (not to mention other interests) in the outcome of policy decisions associated with 'climate change'? Just wondering. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
